ExRussian

First there was Medicare for all 300 million of us. But that was a non-starter because private insurers and Big Pharma wouldn’t hear of it, and Republicans and “centrists” thought it was too much like what they have up in Canada — which, by the way, cost Canadians only 10 percent of their GDP and covers every Canadian. (Our current system of private for-profit insurers costs 16 percent of GDP and leaves out 45 million people.)

So the compromise was to give all Americans the option of buying into a “Medicare-like plan” that competed with private insurers. Who could be against freedom of choice? Fully 70 percent of Americans polled supported the idea. Open to all Americans, such a plan would have the scale and authority to negotiate low prices with drug companies and other providers, and force private insurers to provide better service at lower costs. But private insurers and Big Pharma wouldn’t hear of it, and Republicans and “centrists” thought it would end up too much like what they have up in Canada.

So the compromise was to give the public option only to Americans who wouldn’t be covered either by their employers or by Medicaid. And give them coverage pegged to Medicare rates. But private insurers and … you know the rest.

So the compromise that ended up in the House bill is to have a mere public option, open only to the 6 million Americans not otherwise covered. The Congressional Budget Office warns this shrunken public option will have no real bargaining leverage and would attract mainly people who need lots of medical care to begin with. So it will actually cost more than it saves.

But even the House’s shrunken and costly little public option is too much for private insurers, Big Pharma, Republicans, and “centrists” in the Senate. So Harry Reid has proposed an even tinier public option, which states can decide not to offer their citizens. According to the CBO, it would attract no more than 4 million Americans.

It’s a token public option, an ersatz public option, a fleeting gesture toward the idea of a public option, so small and desiccated as to be barely worth mentioning except for the fact that it still (gasp) contains the word “public.”

And yet Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson mumble darkly that they may not even vote to allow debate on the floor of the Senate about the bill if it contains this paltry public option. And Republicans predict a “holy war.”

But what more can possibly be compromised? Take away the word “public?” Make it available to only twelve people?

Our private, for-profit health insurance system, designed to fatten the profits of private health insurers and Big Pharma, is about to be turned over to … our private, for-profit health care system. Except that now private health insurers and Big Pharma will be getting some 30 million additional customers, paid for by the rest of us.

Upbeat policy wonks and political spinners who tend to see only portions of cups that are full will point out some good things: no pre-existing conditions, insurance exchanges, 30 million more Americans covered. But in reality, the cup is 90 percent empty. Most of us will remain stuck with little or no choice — dependent on private insurers who care only about the bottom line, who deny our claims, who charge us more and more for co-payments and deductibles, who bury us in forms, who don’t take our calls.

I’m still not giving up. I want every Senator who’s not in the pocket of the private insurers or Big Pharma to introduce and vote for a “Ted Kennedy Medicare for All” amendment to whatever bill Reid takes to the floor. And if this fails, a “Ted Kennedy Real Public Option for All” amendment. Let every Senate Democratic who doesn’t have the guts to vote for either of them be known and counted.

President Obama says he wants to “rebalance” the economic relationship between China and the U.S. as part of his plan to restart the American jobs machine. “We cannot go back,” he said in September, “to an era where the Chinese . . . just are selling everything to us, we’re taking out a bunch of credit-card debt or home equity loans, but we’re not selling anything to them.” He hopes that hundreds of millions of Chinese consumers will make up for the inability of American consumers to return to debt-binge spending.

This is wishful thinking. True, the Chinese market is huge and growing fast. By 2009, China was second only to the U.S. in computer sales, with a larger proportion of first-time buyers. It already had more cell-phone users. And excluding SUVs, last year Chinese consumers bought as many cars as Americans (as recently as 2006, Americans bought twice as many).

Even as the U.S. government was bailing out General Motors and Chrysler, the two firms’ sales in China were soaring; GM’s sales there are almost 50% higher this year than last. Proctor & Gamble is so well-established in China that many Chinese think its products (such as green-tea-flavored Crest toothpaste) are Chinese brands. If the Chinese economy continues to grow at or near its current rate and the benefits of that growth trickle down to 1.3 billion Chinese consumers, the country would become the largest shopping bazaar in the history of the world. They’ll be driving over a billion cars and will be the world’s biggest purchasers of household electronics, clothing, appliances and almost everything else produced on the planet.

So this will mean millions of American export jobs, right? No.

In fact China is heading in the opposite direction of “rebalancing.” Its productive capacity keeps soaring, but Chinese consumers are taking home a shrinking proportion of the total economy. Last year, personal consumption in China amounted to only 35% of the Chinese economy; 10 years ago consumption was almost 50%. Capital investment, by contrast, rose to 44% from 35% over the decade.

China’s capital spending is on the way to exceeding that of the U.S., but its consumer spending is barely a sixth as large. Chinese companies are plowing their rising profits back into more productive capacity—additional factories, more equipment, new technologies. China’s massive $600 billion stimulus package has been directed at further enlarging China’s productive capacity rather than consumption. So where will this productive capacity go if not to Chinese consumers? Net exports to other nations, especially the U.S. and Europe.

Many explanations have been offered for the parsimony of Chinese consumers. Social safety-nets are still inadequate, so Chinese families have to cover the costs of health care, education and retirement. Young Chinese men outnumber young Chinese women by a wide margin, so households with sons have to accumulate and save enough assets to compete in the marriage market. Chinese society is aging quickly because the government has kept a tight lid on population growth for three decades, with the result that households are supporting lots of elderly dependents.

But the larger explanation for Chinese frugality is that the nation is oriented to production, not consumption. China wants to become the world’s preeminent producer nation. It also wants to take the lead in the production of advanced technologies. The U.S. would like to retain the lead, but our economy is oriented to consumption rather than production.

Deep down inside the cerebral cortex of our national consciousness we assume that the basic purpose of an economy is to provide more opportunities to consume. We grudgingly support government efforts to rebuild our infrastructure. We want our companies to invest in new equipment and technologies but also want them to pay generous dividends. We approve of government investments in basic research and development, but mainly for the purpose of making the nation more secure through advanced military technologies. (We regard spillovers to the private sector as incidental.)

China’s industrial and technological policy is unapologetically direct. It especially wants America’s know-how, and the best way to capture knowhow is to get it firsthand. So China continues to condition many sales by U.S. and foreign companies on production in China—often in joint ventures with Chinese companies.

American firms are now helping China build a “smart” infrastructure, tackle pollution with clean technologies, develop a new generation of photovoltaics and wind turbines, find new applications for nanotechologies, and build commercial jets and jet engines. GM recently announced it was planning to make a new subcompact in China designed and developed primarily by the Pan-Asia Technical Automotive Center, a joint venture between GM and SAIC Motor in Shanghai. General Electric is producing wind turbine components in China. Earlier this month, Massachusetts-based Evergreen Solar announced it will be moving its solar panel production to China.

The Chinese government also wants to create more jobs in China, and it will continue to rely on exports. Each year, tens of millions of poor Chinese pour into large cities from the countryside in pursuit of better-paying work. If they don’t find it, China risks riots and other upheaval. Massive disorder is one of the greatest risks facing China’s governing elite. That elite would much rather create export jobs, even at the cost of subsidizing foreign buyers, than allow the yuan to rise and thereby risk job shortages at home.

To this extent, China’s export policy is really a social policy, designed to maintain order. Despite the Obama administration’s entreaties, China will continue to peg the yuan to the dollar—when the dollar drops, selling yuan in the foreign-exchange market and adding to its pile of foreign assets in order to maintain the yuan’s fixed relation to the dollar. This is costly to China, of course, but for the purposes of industrial and social policy, China figures the cost is worth it.

The dirty little secret on both sides of the Pacific is that both America and China are capable of producing far more than their own consumers are capable of buying. In the U.S., the root of the problem is a growing share of total income going to the richest Americans, leaving the middle class with relatively less purchasing power unless they go deep into debt. Inequality is also widening in China, but the problem there is a declining share of the fruits of economic growth going to average Chinese and an increasing share going to capital investment.

Both societies are threatened by the disconnect between production and consumption. In China, the threat is civil unrest. In the U.S., it’s a prolonged jobs and earnings recession that, when combined with widening inequality, could create political backlash.

How can the stock market hit new highs at the same time unemployment is hitting new highs? Simple. The market is up because corporate earnings are up. Corporate earnings are up because companies are cutting costs. And the biggest single cost they’re cutting is their payrolls. So they let people go and, presto, their balance sheets look better and their stock prices rise.

In the old-fashioned kind of recession decades ago, big companies laid off people with the expectation of rehiring them when the economy turned up. Then a few recessions back, companies started laying off people for good, never rehiring them even when the economy recovered.

In the Great Recession of 2008-2009, companies are going a step further. They’re using this sharp downturn to cut payrolls even below where they were when times were good. Outsourcing abroad, setting up shop in China and elsewhere, contracting out, replacing people with software and automated machines – they’re doing whatever it takes to get payrolls down so earnings bounce up.

Caterpillar earned $404 million in the third quarter, or 64 cents a share. Analysts had expected only 5 cents. Caterpillar’s stock is up 165 percent since March. How did Caterpillar do it? Not by selling more bulldozers. It did it by cutting over 37,000 jobs.

The result, overall, is an asset-based recovery, not a Main Street recovery. Yes, the economy is growing again, but the surge in productivity is a mirage. Worker output per hour is skyrocketing because companies are generating almost as much output with fewer workers and fewer hours.

The Fed, meanwhile, has become an enabler to all this, making it as cheap as possible for companies to axe their employees. Money costs so little these days it’s easy to substitute capital for labor. It’s also easy to buy up foreign assets with cheap American money. And it’s now blissfully easy for Wall Street to borrow money almost free and buy all sorts of interests in foreign assets, especially commodities. That’s why we’re seeing the prices of foreign commodities and other assets go through the roof.

At the same time, the Treasury continues to be fixated on keeping banks afloat. The Administration’s mortgage mitigation efforts are lagging. Small businesses are starved of credit. The White House has announced a “jobs summit,” which is better than nothing but not nearly as good as pushiing immediately for a larger stimulus, a new jobs tax credit, and a WPA-style jobs program.

The Fed and the Teasury have, in effect, placed a huge bet on a recovery driven by asset prices. That’s a bad bet. The great disconnect between the stock market and jobs is pushing stock prices way out of line with the real economy. This isn’t sustainable.

No economy can recover without consumers. Yet American consumers, who constitute 70 percent of the U.S. economy, are facing mounting job losses as well as pay cuts. They’re in no mood to buy and won’t be for some time.

Where is this heading? No place good. Without a major shift in policy — both at the Fed and in the White House — the economics point to a big stock-market correction and a double dip. The politics point to substantial losses for Democrats next year.

Dear Senator,

I know you’re in a tough spot. It would be bad enough if you only had to get Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln on board, but anyone who has to kiss Joe Lieberman’s derriere deserves a congressional medal of honor.

But Harry, you really need to take on future health-care costs. The House bill fails to do this. The public option in the House bill is open only to people without employer-provided health insurance. That will be too small a number to have bargaining clout to get good deals from drug companies and medical providers. And it will mainly attract people who have more expensive medical needs, which is why the Congressional Budget Office decided it would cost more than it would save.

You also know a public insurance option that’s open to everyone would cut future health costs dramatically by imposing real competition on private for-profit insurance plans. That’s why the private insurers hate the idea. Even if states were allowed to opt out of this robust public option, the big states would almost certainly opt in, giving it the scale needed to negotiate great deals from drug companies and medical providers. This would put pressure on any state that opted out because their citizens would soon discover they’re paying far more.

In addition to the House’s weak public option, the deals the White House and Max Baucus made with the drug companies and the AMA will force Americans to pay even more. If, on the other hand, Medicare were allowed to negotiate lower drug prices, biotech drugs weren’t granted a twelve-years monopoly, and doctors had to accept Medicare reimbursements in line with legislation enacted years ago, Americans would save billions.

You know all this but you’re also trying to get 60 votes in order get any bill to the floor. You have my sympathies, but unless you get these reforms into the final Senate bill you’re not really helping most Americans afford future health care.

So what do you do?

First, try for the “reconciliation” process, which requires only 51 votes. Every one of the reforms I mention above would fit under the Byrd rule.

If that doesn’t work, wrap these reforms together — a public option open to everyone (allow states to opt out of this if they dare), Medicare-negotiated drug benefits, no 12-year monopoly for new drugs, and a major squeeze on Medicare reimbursements for doctors — and have CBO score the savings. I guarantee you, the number will be large. Then you should dare anyone, Democrat or Republican, to vote against saving Americans so much money in years ahead. How is Ben Nelson going to face voters in Nebraska who would have to pay, say, 20 percent more for health care in the future if Nelson refuses to go along?

If neither of these tactics work, then take whatever bill you must to the Senate floor. But then introduce this reform package as the very first amendment to the bill. Call it the “Ted Kennedy Amendment for Helping Middle Class Families Afford Health Care,” and whip the hell out of the Democrats. Get the President to help you. Surely Joe Biden will. If you can’t get 51 votes out of Dems for this, publish the list of Dems who vote against it, strip them of their committee chairs or sub-chairs, and make sure the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee gives them zilch when they’re up for re-election.

Nobody promised you this would be easy, Harry. But, hell, why are you there, anyway? Your responsibility isn’t just to pass whatever will muster 60 votes and that the President and Dems can later call “health care reform.” It’s to do the right thing by the American people and bring down future health-care costs. Don’t cave in to Lieberman or Nelson or the drug companies or the private insurers or the AMA or anyone else. Lead the charge.

All best.

Times are taxing for everybody; in particular for painting companies. It’s not really only one entity building it this fashion. It’s a conclusion of stuff that have completely happened as one to produce the perfect storm to clean out the entire painting industry. Let us peek at a little of the reasons, why things are the manner they are, therefore we will be able to stop putting the culpability on only a single groups shoulders.

. Job loss rate: Ten percent and escalating. This puts the consumers we labor for, out of a occupation and affords them extra time at their home to accomplish stuff such as house painting. Also they aren’t capable to make the payments on their houses, consequently they paint their houses themselves to try to move out from beneath the payment by selling the house.

. Foreclosures: Lending Institutions are taking enormous numbers of homes back and they aren’t to willing to supply any funds inside these homes to acquire maximum dollar for these homes.

. 1st Time House Buyers: They aren’t exactly prepared to part with money to get their homes painted cause of job concerns and the fact that most have exhausted most of their cash on buying their home.

. Investment Buyers: Clever group of people to be familiar with but nearly all of the time they maintain their own workers that do this brand of work for 10 % of what you would like to bill as a faux painting contractor.

. New Houses: This certain category has practically closed and I have seen painting companies that had nothing else, other than associates with housing developers and did not know how to generate their own work, go bankrupt.

. Refinancing: When almost all of the refi was up for grabs, our consumers were in possession of loads of money. At the present the lending institutions don’t care to refinance anyone leaving our consumers a off-putting cash flow.

. Significantly Inundated Housing Marketplace: If there’s a cluster of houses on the block in the neighborhood that are foreclosed on, they almost certainly are sending the house prices down and the influence of the “Better than the Neighbors Effect” is also affected. That’s precisely the exact fad that pushed them to hurry out and get a new Mercedes cause the neighbors got one. It’s right now working against your company.

. Contractors Aren’t Busy: Once general contractors get slow on the uptake they cease sub contracting and begin to perform all the work from start to finish especially the exterior painting.

. House Painters Unemployed: That’s correct, you did what you had to do as a faux painting contractor, you chopped down your painting team to just you and possibly one other. But what about those people your business laid off? Some may have went back to their home country but several stayed and now these painters lacking insurance or a license are your direct competition. They need to make a living and they will be able to accomplish it for less cause they don’t have most of the over head you carry. Wednesday my wife put an estimate in for $6989, one more contractor gave one in for $6498 and that’s acceptable and then a house painter, that painted a house down the road and had a personal reference from the home owners buddy came down and submitted an estimate for $3777 !! What the heck! The painter could have bid $6500 and still received the job but he was simply the employee of the guy that painted the friends house at the end of the road. He got fired, came back to every single one of the homes he had painted underneath his ex bosses painting company and gave out his card. He did not know how to estimate interior painting so he bid way to little. This is happening all the time, now.

. This Old House: Idle individuals have more time to stare at Television and they view this program and assume they can do everything.

In closing I would like to state that it’s simple to put our problems in the painting industry on one thing but as you can see it is a good deal more than only that. Only the strongest shall endure this and I’m set on being one of them. I hold the upper hand on the majority since me and my wife are painters and I am talented at promotion.

Seeking a http://www.schmidtpainting.net/video.html in Mass request Schmidt Painting Service 508-292-9945.

Find out helpful advice about forex investment – please make sure to read the web site. The time has come when proper info is truly only one click of your mouse, use this chance.

You have been warned. “This book is not for the fainthearted or easily disgusted,” reads the first line. And it’s no hyperbole; Mark Felton describes in gut-wrenching detail the physical, sexual and emotional tortures wrought on Allied soldiers and Asian civilians by the Japanese military police.
Posted November 6, 2009

The Chinese Communist Party has managed to convince the world that its future is inexorably intertwined with China’s, and perhaps it is. Thus, it behooves the world to attempt to understand this opaque governing institution, Kerry Brown writes in Friends and Enemies. “Like it or not, the CCP’s success or failure, and its future plans, impact us all now,” he argues in the preface.
Posted November 6, 2009

In 1992, the United Nation’s most expensive peacekeeping operation at the time, the U.N. Transitional Authority on Cambodia, landed in the capital of Phnom Penh, intervening between four warring factions and administering the country’s first election in 1993. The royalist party Funcinpec overwhelmingly defeated the Cambodian People’s Party, which had been installed under the Vietnamese occupation of the 1980s. Yet the CPP refused to relinquish power, agreeing instead to a system whereby the two parties could rule with two co-prime ministers.
Posted November 6, 2009

In six concise chapters, Jun Morikawa, a professor of international relations at Rakuno Gakuen University in Sapporo, provides a short, yet detailed overview of the economic, bureaucratic and political forces which have contributed to shaping the position of the Japanese government on whaling over the last half-century. His views are made clear from the onset: The Japanese government is misguided to invest so much effort and resources trying to defend a policy which is wrong in the eyes of much of the developed world and has brought few benefits to Japan. For the world’s second biggest economy, he says, “whaling is neither a major economic issue nor a matter of vital national importance.”
Posted November 6, 2009

Making observations on the West’s fascination with the “otherness” of the East has become something of an industry. So a title such as The East, the West, and Sex: A History of Erotic Encounters ought to entice readers like the come-on of a tart in the massage parlor doorway. Unfortunately, and as is often the case with tarts, the book delivers much less than promised once the price is paid. Despite its claims to be “a history,” this is a volume light on scholarly apparatus, closely reasoned argument or sense of direction. Instead it consists largely of commentary on the travel narratives, letters, conversations and blogs of a handful of carefully selected Western libertines, interspersed with anecdotes of individual modern East-West relationships and material only tenuously connected to the book’s thesis.
Posted November 6, 2009